Married daughters are excluded from the definition of 'family' under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and a registered partition deed executed prior to the relevant amendments to the Hindu Succession Act is binding and valid.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 24/7/2019 passed in O.S.No.774/2014 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for brevity), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession and to declare that the registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is created and not binding on the plaintiffs' share, which was confirmed in R.A.No.108/2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for brevity) vide judgment and decree ydtd. 24/11/2020.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.774/2014 against defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition and separate possession of the Schedule Property. The Schedule appended to the plaint refers to the agricultural land, measuring 6 acres in Sy.No.107/1, situated at Santhekadur Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein.

4. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 and one Sri S.K.Parameshwarappa are the children of late Sri S.K.Krishnappa. Defendant No.1 is his wife. Sri S.K.Parameshwarappa died leaving behind his wife who is arrayed as defendant No.2. Thus, the plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the Hindu Undivided Family. They are in joint possession of the Schedule Property.

5. It is contended that the Schedule Property was granted in favour Sri S.K.Krishnappa by the Special Tahsildar vide order dtd. 28/2/1981 passed in LRF(T)STK 1144/74-75. The plaintiffs and the defendants were cultivating the Schedule Property. After the death of Sri S.K.Krishnappa, the property was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 being wife of late S.K.Krishnappa. It is stated that there was no partition between the family members and all the members were jointly cultivating and were enjoying the property. When the plaintiffs demanded for effecting partition and allotting their share, the defendants started giving evasive answer. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to effect division of the Schedule Property by metes and bounds. The defendants have refused to take notice. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are managed to mutate their names in the revenue records on the basis of the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have colluded with one another and entered into such partition behind the back of the plaintiffs with mala-fide intention and to make wrongful gain. Therefore, the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is stated that the cause of action of the suit arose on 10/7/2014 when the plaintiffs demanded their legitimate share and on 15/10/2014, when they got issued the legal notice to effect partition by metes and bounds. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share in the Schedule Property by metes and bounds by declaring that the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 as concocted and not binding on the plaintiffs.

6. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and her legal representatives being defendant Nos.2 to 5, were brought on record.

7. The defendants have appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants and their father being S.K.Krishnappa and the husband of defendant No.2- S.K.Parameshwarappa being one of the son of S.K.Krishnappa and defendant No.1. It is denied that there was a joint family in joint possession of the Schedule Property. The contention of the plaintiffs that the Schedule Property was granted in favour of S.K.Krishnappa by the Special Tahsildar vide order dtd. 28/2/1981 is admitted. But it is denied that the